Conservatives: What did Hitler get wrong?

How do we deal with racism?
It's a leaned emotion.
Education?

 

What? I hold no ill will to anyone.

 

I'm sure Mussolini wrote that same sentence in Avanti! But this isn't an indictment of you per se, but of how the human mind works. It takes short cuts. These short cuts can often be very wrong and we are completely blind to how.

No one starts a genocide trying to do bad...

 

Dialog. It's through dialog that humanity refines its ideas. That's why unlimited individual rights to speech are so important to free society. It's why so called political correctness is so very dangerous.

 

Your beloved BLOTUS embraced the white supremacist nazis while no leaders on the left have embraced Antifa.

That is the YUUUUUGE difference!

 

Ironic coming from someone who actually did vote for a disgusting pig with an R after his name.

 

Disingenuous projection on your part!

You should try reading your own posts where you are doing exactly what you just fallaciously accused me of doing!

 

He couldn't invade Britain, his navy couldn't even stop pleasure boats from picking up soldiers at Dunkirk and he didn't have transports ready. German fighters only had fuel for about 8 mins over parts of England, the RAF would have had a field day.

Hitler got about 1/3 of his oil from Stalin. It was suicide to attack him when so many strategic materials needed for the war effort came from the USSR. Once he invaded, the clock was ticking on when supplies would run out and even in 1941, German tanks ran out of steam at times because of lack of fuel.

I doubt there was anything they could do to stop the Normandy invasion. Releasing the armor sooner would have just given allied aircraft more targets. His meddling in all sorts of army matters might have prevented victory over Stalin, but I doubt it.

After the US declared war on Japan, Germany declared war on the US. Now being allied with Britain and Stalin, it was decided that Hitler was the biggest threat so the greater effort was in Europe.

 

Ever clueless. The only thing running last election were pigs it's just there are a few non pigs on the R side though not nearly enough.

 

Where is your proof?

 

Proof, hah! They don't need any stinking proof.....or facts.

 

Right here!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/16/us/politics/trump-republicans-race.html?mcubz=1

http://www.businessinsider.com/neo-nazis-celebrate-trumps-remarks-about-charlottesville-riots-2017-8

Now where is YOUR proof that political leaders on the left have embraced Antifa?

 

Ironic on both counts!

 

You call that proof that Trump supports white supremacist nazis? Just more projecting by the left and cowardly Republicans.


So, I see last week was Russia, Russia, Russia, and now we're back to Nazi, Nazi, Nazi. At least the lefties are consistent.

 

Denial of reality on the part of the extremist alt right BLOTUS supporters does not alter reality one iota!

 

PC is a form of refining ideas on a large scale. How effective it is, is up for discussion. IMO, it's to reduce hateful dialog.
Free speech can lead to bloody riots. Words do have an effect. Even though sticks and stones should apply.

 

Sorry but the New York Times, really? The leftist leaning news paper in existence. Neither of our links stated that he supported neonazis he merely supported history and called out both sides in Chancellorsville which is the right call.

The left shows their support of antifa by having the police stand down whenever they antifa is around.

 

De don't need no proof. His easily falsified assertions are enough for him.

 

No PC is a way of avoiding having to think. It is about silencing speech not refining it.

 

So is yelling fire in a crowded theater.
But most agree its not wise.

 

No yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because there is a law against it. Political correctness has no laws to force people to be pc as yet, I hope never.

 

Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not illegal, nor is it always unwise. The poor example of yelling fire in a theater is meant to illustrate speech that initiates intentional violent consequences.

The concept itself, however, leads to specious reasoning. If someone runs into a crowded theater yelling "stab me, stab me," for example, can you prosecute them for incitement to violence before or after they get stabbed?

 

I doubt pc will become illegal.

They law for fire is because people will react and some may die in rush.

PC should not reach that level. Most of the time pc is for protection of something.

 

Perhaps a poor example. But saying pc is silencing speech is wrong. Speech isn't silenced, but certain words to describe a situation is viewed as perhaps inciting unkindly reactions.

 

The purpose of pc is to carve out exceptions to protected speech. Yes, the intent is to silence speech. Further, it has been extended beyond things you're not allowed to say into legislating exactly what you must say; Canada's bill c16 as an example.

Incessantly calling someone Bob when their name is Greg is not a hate crime. Calling someone she when they want you to call them ze is. Its my opinion that its exactly this type of "hate" that the first amendment protects. And the reason being that speech is the only non violent way to resolve the disagreement between the two. Allowing "she"might make "ze" feel violent, but not allowing "she" doesn't resolve the issue that prompts the violence in the first place.

You don't change people's minds with government threats. You change them with reasoned discussion about the conflict.